From: "Pádraig Brady" <P@draigBrady.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <wfg@linux.intel.com>,
Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Bad SSD performance with recent kernels
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 15:52:06 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F256B26.3060309@draigBrady.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1327842831.2718.2.camel@edumazet-laptop>
On 01/29/2012 01:13 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le dimanche 29 janvier 2012 à 19:16 +0800, Wu Fengguang a écrit :
>
>
>> Note that as long as buffered read(2) is used, it makes almost no
>> difference (well, at least for now) to do "dd bs=128k" or "dd bs=2MB":
>> the 128kb readahead size will be used underneath to submit read IO.
>>
>
> Hmm...
>
> # echo 3 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches ;dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=128k count=32768
> 32768+0 enregistrements lus
> 32768+0 enregistrements écrits
> 4294967296 octets (4,3 GB) copiés, 20,7718 s, 207 MB/s
>
>
> # echo 3 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches ;dd if=/dev/sda of=/dev/null bs=2M count=2048
> 2048+0 enregistrements lus
> 2048+0 enregistrements écrits
> 4294967296 octets (4,3 GB) copiés, 27,7824 s, 155 MB/s
Same here on 2.6.40.4-5.fc15.x86_64
Note the SSD is rated for 500MB/s but is on a SATA II port,
and so limited by that. So the 128k result below is
close to the limit on this system.
Hmm, I previously tested this SSD with kernel-2.6.38.6-26.rc1.fc15.src.rpm
and got 270MB/s. Testing now gives variable and lower results:
# echo 3 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; hdparm -tT /dev/sdb
/dev/sdb:
Timing cached reads: 8388 MB in 2.00 seconds = 4200.73 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 550 MB in 3.00 seconds = 183.19 MB/sec
# echo 3 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; hdparm -tT /dev/sdb
/dev/sdb:
Timing cached reads: 8260 MB in 2.00 seconds = 4134.30 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 680 MB in 3.00 seconds = 226.63 MB/sec
# echo 3 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; hdparm -tT /dev/sdb
/dev/sdb:
Timing cached reads: 8426 MB in 2.00 seconds = 4217.87 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 588 MB in 3.00 seconds = 195.96 MB/sec
Anyway testing different block sizes with dd:
# echo 3 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; timeout -sINT 5 dd if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/null bs=2M
966787072 bytes (967 MB) copied, 5.00525 s, 193 MB/s
# echo 3 >/proc/sys/vm/drop_caches; timeout -sINT 5 dd if=/dev/sdb of=/dev/null bs=128k
1246494720 bytes (1.2 GB) copied, 4.99563 s, 250 MB/s
On a probably unrelated note, I've always noticed dd getting slower,
independent of disks, when the buffer size increases beyond 2M.
for i in $(seq 0 15); do
size=$((16*1024**3)) #ensure this is big enough
bs=$((1024*2**$i))
printf "%8s=" $bs
dd bs=$bs if=/dev/zero of=/dev/null count=$(($size/$bs)) 2>&1 |
sed -n 's/.* \([0-9.]* [GM]B\/s\)/\1/p'
done
1024=1.4 GB/s
2048=2.6 GB/s
4096=4.5 GB/s
8192=6.7 GB/s
16384=8.8 GB/s
32768=9.4 GB/s
65536=10.8 GB/s
131072=11.5 GB/s
262144=11.5 GB/s
524288=11.3 GB/s
1048576=11.3 GB/s
2097152=10.6 GB/s
4194304=6.5 GB/s
8388608=5.9 GB/s
16777216=6.6 GB/s
33554432=6.6 GB/s
cheers,
Pádraig.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-01-29 16:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-01-27 6:00 Bad SSD performance with recent kernels Herbert Poetzl
2012-01-27 6:44 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-01-28 12:51 ` Wu Fengguang
2012-01-28 13:33 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-01-29 5:59 ` Wu Fengguang
2012-01-29 8:42 ` Herbert Poetzl
2012-01-29 9:28 ` Wu Fengguang
2012-01-29 10:03 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-01-29 11:16 ` Wu Fengguang
2012-01-29 13:13 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-01-29 15:52 ` Pádraig Brady [this message]
2012-01-29 16:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2012-01-29 20:15 ` Herbert Poetzl
2012-01-30 11:18 ` Wu Fengguang
2012-01-30 12:34 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-01-30 14:01 ` Wu Fengguang
2012-01-30 14:05 ` Wu Fengguang
2012-01-30 3:17 ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-30 5:31 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-01-30 5:45 ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-30 7:13 ` Herbert Poetzl
2012-01-30 7:22 ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-30 7:36 ` Herbert Poetzl
2012-01-30 8:12 ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-30 10:31 ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-30 14:28 ` Wu Fengguang
2012-01-30 14:51 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-01-30 22:26 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-01-31 0:14 ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-31 1:07 ` Wu Fengguang
2012-01-31 3:00 ` Shaohua Li
2012-01-31 2:17 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-01-31 8:46 ` Eric Dumazet
2012-01-31 6:36 ` Herbert Poetzl
2012-01-30 14:48 ` Wu Fengguang
2012-01-28 17:01 ` Herbert Poetzl
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4F256B26.3060309@draigBrady.com \
--to=p@draigbrady.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
--cc=herbert@13thfloor.at \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=wfg@linux.intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox